Covenant College Supports Gay & Christian Bashing?

"if I had to work at a place where I lived with the constant fear of being fired (or having my coworkers fired), I might be inclined to skew towards the ultra-conservative" ... Odd... it had the completely OPPOSITE affect on me!

:-)
--
RDS (FORMER PCA-er)

Thanks, excellent engagement of topic! By the way, not that it matters or anything, but it's Rev. McGiffert nowadays!

Randy I'd surmise it'd have the same affect on me, though ultra conservative isn't something I think I'll ever struggle with. :)

And Rev. McGiffert, my apologies. Won't happen again!

The title of the picture should be "Name that widows peak."

In fairness to Marshall... you give him NO slack, but I suppose you've made it one of your roles in life to do so.

My sense is that the admin wasn't prepped for the "Contract needs to go, Censorship - less is more, Gay Covenant Alumni Group, Internet Explorer 7" discussion topics. It's like they invited a bunch a friends to a party then a corner of the room turned into The Hague.

With time, they'll work it out and the Are You Hot or Nots, Missionaries, Goofy Old Friends and the Angst Riddens can party together in peace... the Breakfast Club taught me so much, where's that Seven Tribes bus?

Dave, which one am I? Judd Nelson? I'd so rather be Emilio Estevez 'cause he ends up with Ally Sheedy who still holds a special place in my heart as my first TV/Movie crush (it was War Games that did it for me).

As to the "slack": I'm not saying Marshall's decision wasn't understandable, it was, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Well, considering I didn't notice the Ecce Homo group before (or maybe I did and just didn't think twice about it), maybe the admin inadvertantly helped promote "thoughtful discussion" by censoring the group.

Ally Sheedy in "WarGames" is a tremendous reason to be heterosexual. It's the games she plays with those blue jeans.

funke is right, whether cov intended it or not.

Josiah, unfortunately you and I fall squarely under the Anthony Michael Hall category... and I never say anything in Molly Ringwald or Ally Sheedy - and I know in your heart that you think Ed is Paul Gleason.

It is a shame that our great John Hughes hasn't made a decent flic since the 80's (unless you count his brilliant writing in Maid in Manhattan)

the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble, the bubble . . . some one please step into the outside world and walk among the human beings

a sure sign that you're not engaging culture is if you ever find yourself talking about the abstract idea of engaging culture

who's in the bubble and where can I find the outside world?

On the other hand, gay and Christian bashing are both quite a lot of fun. Verbal abuse of any eccentric society has a lot to be said for it. Maybe Covenant was, in a perverse way, trying to preserve free speech.

Or maybe it's a glorified parochial secondary school, and expecting intellectual or ethical consistency is inviting despair into your bosom. There's also that distinct possibility.

I engaged your mom's culture last night. Abstractly.

Hey - Sorry for interrupting. I'm helping reassemble the Rockytop Brigade. If you would like to be listed, can you send me an email address for the blog and tell me in what part of the state you're located?

Thanks!

mail at jonathanhickman dot com

Your mom's culture goes to college.

Also I tend to agree with Mesh... Ally Sheedy is a playing headgames (play the song in you head) in war games.

Also so are their gay people at covenant? If so they should do what any other public or catholic school does, relegate them to the drama department.

Hi. Josiah, in your post you refer to T.J.'s group as "Group intended to promote the thoughtful Christian engagement of the homosexuality "issue" but this was not at all the impression I got from the title of the group or the extremely defensive, possibly bitter comments in his profile. I would be more than happy to engage in discussion on these issues (this seems to be happening on the community section of the site now), but the title of the site, "Gay Christians and their Allies...and something about not perpetuating homophobia to the detriment of Christian love" did not, on forst glance, appear to be a place for "discussion" of both sides of the issue. It seemed to be a place where you signed your name on the dotted line if you believed wholeheartedly in the cause--i.e., that homosexuality was not a sinful lifestyle but just an alternative Christian lifestyle. Also, from looking at the group in the context of reading the profile comments, that those believing that, based on biblical texts, homosexuality is a sin are "homophobic". TJ, I might be completely wrong in gathering that this is included in your definition of "homophobia" but that is the impression I got. Please define hompphobia as I would like to understand exactly what you mean. Your profile comments indicate great hurts you have experienced in the Covenant or Christian community, and that deeply saddens me. I think Christians have often been abusive, unkind and unloving to homosexuals--even with small jokes and snide comments, and that makes me angry--even at myself. I am deeply sorry for the pain this must have caused you. Also, the naivete and refusal to even discuss the issues lead to great pain and misunderstandings. Lastly, Christians do tend to rank sin and see homosexuality as "really bad"--taboo--this is extremely clear when looking at the Christian reaction to Brokeback Mountain. Many of the same people who went nuts over it and sent hate male to _Christinity Today_ and other publications did not seem to have a problem with Heath Ledger's next film _Cassonova_ which openly advocated and glorified a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. Anyway, sorry for going on and on. One last thing is that there seem to be generalizations on both sides--I don't think making the condescending and very general comment about people living in bubbles is very helpful. Yes, all of us do live in bubbles of some sort, and some certinly more than others, but the answer is not to embrace what is outside your little bubble just to cause a backlash or make a point or, dare I say it, be cool. The most important thing is to hold everything up to God's word-the Bible itself certainly does not propel us to live in a Bubble but to face up to reality. I am living in England and my English department is heavily populated by both gays and lesbians that are my friends and lecturers. One friend recently --I certainly don't feel in a bubble. One of these friends recently became an Anglican priest. Several of these friends wanted to talk to me about my views on their lifestyle as they know that I am a Christian and attend a church that has resisted the pull to ordain gay bishops. I found our conversations open and helpful, even though I did clearly express the Bible's view on homosexualty. We became better friends after these conversations--and I encourage more conversations like these--where we really listen to one another rather than merely slapping on labels that are painful and condescending. Gay and Christian bashing, Josiah??--Was Marshall doing this because he did allow a group that openly advocates and seems to perhaps even revel in a lifestyle he sees as counter to scripture (wouldn't he also ban groups that openly advocate the EMBRACING of--not just struggling with or discussing openly--alcoholism, pornography, gossip, etc.)Do the posts on the Covenant forum also "Gay bash" or is that just another general stereotype of how Christians think. Yes, I believe many Christians do and have done this and perhaps according to your definition (do you have one?) I have just done it in this post. Let's be more specific about the words we chose--I think it will help encourage an open and loving discussion rather than an unhelpful argument.
Mary

Wow--maybe you can tell by the length of my post that I am a good friend of J.O.'s--I blame it all on her influence. Guess I should have put such a lengthy post on the forum itself--sorry Josiah. Hope Dave doesn't get yet another headache.

Mary you and Julie are both thoughtful folk and when I can get past my lazy - get me the thought quick - tendancies I'm encouraged by the posts.

Mary you and Julie are both thoughtful folk and when I can get past my lazy - get me the thought quick - tendancies I'm encouraged by the posts.

I'm late to this, Josiah, but I'd just say that anytime you begin to feel dispirited by the administration's policies, you need only imagine their boardroom meetings, in which every mildly inventive proposal is greeted with an emphatic chorus of "Nish-nish!" and all resentment quickly fades.

I'm late to this, Josiah, but I'd just say that anytime you begin to feel dispirited by the administration's policies, you need only imagine their boardroom meetings, in which every mildly inventive proposal is greeted with an emphatic chorus of "Nish-nish!" and all resentment quickly fades.

For the record, Mary, the site stated that it was for people who did not want to see the church further divided over the issue of homosexuality. It stated that no gay-bashing or christian-bashing or sexually explicit language would be allowed.

As for the defensiveness...these are alphabets typed on a neutral screen. Perhaps you are projecting your own attitudes onto mine? Or are you clairvoyant? Isn't that considered Satanic at Covenant?

PS If you have to ask what exactly homophobia is, I have some (probably) disappoinitng news for ya...it means you are one!

Rev McGiffert- you have a post on the Covenant website on what is violence and you give a six paragraph definition. Then you call Mary a homophobe because she asked what your definition is.

Are you violent because you are opening a discussion about violence?

Hi. TJ, I was honestly hoping to learn something from you--my question was not sarcastic or ironic. I am sorry that my post has upset you so much that you feel you must directly accuse me of being homophobic (I thought Josiah and Isaac might be the ones offended as I recognized after writing it that I was perhaps a bit too harsh in confronting their use of what I saw as inflammatory language/labels--sorry guys). I had thought that homophobic meant an attitude of being hateful to homosexuals as well as fearing them/their lifestyle and I just wanted clarification of this as I felt that many of those who have written in response of the Covenant forum did not come across as hateful or fearful. As for the comments on your profile, you have now changed them but initially they referred to your being "the biggest sinner at Covenant" and how others basically chastised you or something like that, which actually made me very sad to read. I wish you would reread my entire post and actually talk with me about my quesitons and points (even if you believe they are very flawed or ignorant) rather than just labelling me. Thank you, Mary

Interesting discussion. When I was newly converted, God saved me out of a heterosexually immoral lifestyle. I had a friend who was converted around the same time. God brought him out of a homosexual lifestyle. We moved in together to help each other learn to love Christ, each other and our neighbors (Christians or not). No stigmas, no labels, just love in Christ. Why then is it so easy, when I look at the sins of others, to forget that God brought me up out of a horrible pit (Psalm 40:2) and redeemed me wholly by His grace in love (Eph.2:8; 1 John 4:9). That said, we still must tell people, in true humility and love, that there are "lifestyles" that God declares are so evil that prevents those who practice such things from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:20-21). If we are silent in warning men about the consequences of sin for fear of being called, homophobs, self-righteous, judgmental ..... Then we truly do not love them. Would you allow a child to run out in front of a car, knowing he would be killed? Of course not. If we believe the Scriptures are true and that God has clearly identified certain life/soul destroying practices, then we must speak that truth and warn any who would do those things lest they destroy themselves. As Jesus said, You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:32. He also said, "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." - John 10:10 My thoughts, hope I'm not intruding. P.S. And I'd still love you son even if you became an ultra-conservative.

Josiah - I'd suggest that you might also be reading your own views onto other people. I know Marshall reasonably well and have never heard him express a constant fear of being fired. I'd suggest that what folks are calling censorship might just be an attempt by the host to keep the party within the bounds of what he believes is decent. I mean if I invited you to my house and you promptly popped the Boogie Nights DVD in my DVD player, I'd not only turn it off, but ask you to leave.

And before anyone starts arguing how great Book Nights is, I'm not arguing about it's quality, but it's content. It's not appropriate for a party at my house.

Sorry - Boogie Nights - my fingers were getting ahead of my brain. And can I just say that I hate it that this thing keeps double posting?

I have sent an email to Mary apologizing to her and asking her forgiveness which she has graciously granted. I should know better than name-calling and I apologize to all of you for the unkindness it portrayed. Please forgive me.

I do not want to justify any inappropriate comments but I feel a need to explain them. I want to ask you to understand for a minute what it is like to be me...

I have no way of knowing when a person says they are a christian & believe homosexuality is a sin if they are a Fred Phelps-type person or what. Do they want me dead? That is pretty much a literal biblical position.

I have experienced a lot of kindness & open-mindedness in this splash back into the Covenant College ethos after being away 26 years...I have also experienced some who seem brainwashed and content to spout the party line and dismiss me to their convenient hell so they don't have to see the reality of my deep & sustaining christian faith & service. This I truly don't understand, because the one thing I am continually thankful for is that Covenant taught me to think. I certainly didn't learn how to think growing up in public schools in Alabama!

Unfortunately, the CC I knew in 1977-80 was also a place that glorified white euro-male heterosexual, christian privilege. So I don't expect to run in to very many CCers who mean it when they say 'we love you and don't want to judge you, we just hold this traditional view of the bible & homosexuality.'

So, now I know there are some people from CC who hold this traditional view but don't wish me harm, and I am relieved. Every day God can teach us something new if we open our hearts & minds.

May the peace of Christ dwell richly within your hearts & minds, opening you up to share the good news with your neighbor no matter who or what they are/have been/will be...amen.

Ed! I had no idea that the Ecco Homo group was posting softcore porn pictures! It's a dang good thing it was shut down! I take everything I said back. If conversations meant to edify the Body implies porn, then I'll have none of it!

I can tell just how serious you are about this.

I can tell just how serious you are about this.

Josiah, if you expect to be taken seriously, then take other people seriously. If someone has shown you no disrespect, do not disrespect them in return.

And please fix the double posting thing.

It is clear from reading Mr. McGifferts blog that he does support the homosexual lifestyle..to what extent is not clear. Knowing that, such a forum for a college that is under the oversight of the PCA is completely inappropriate. Why are we even suprised, or even upset that the College would allow a group which seeks to try and sway people against the basic principles of Scripture.

Also, it is clear from Mr. McGifferts blog that he holds a liberation theology view of Scripture which is steep in liberalism.

This is more than about being homosexual in my view, this is about one's fundamental commitment to the authority of Scripture. Again, I commend the college for pulling the group and believe they did the bibically responsible thing.

Mr. McGiffert's "Credo"....posted on his blog...

...In the midst of mystery and the enduring presence of religious community, the gospel's creative power of transforming love engages us in the beauty and tragedy of life to awaken compassion, call us to justice, and invites us to live in harmony with the Earth...

I am committed to the respect and empowerment of the universal religious experience, with its different languages and symbols, in worship, religious education, and community ideals, as it brings forth compassionate acts of healing and enduring works of justice and peace.

At the heart of my christian faith is a profound sense of the holy and a critical trust in the power of reason.

I am fully accountable to my calling and to the highest standards of the vocation of ministry.

I endeavor to lead a simple, balanced life, fed by my spiritual practice, and to relate authentically to others.

I expect to see the reality of my own biases and privileges and agree to work daily to liberate and transform myself as well as the oppressive social and economic systems which devalue human worth and dignity.

I nurture an earthly sense of optimism, staying engaged with the world and with people, and providing vigilance in the tasks of ministry.

This I do covenant with all that is holy.

Danny: I post this to show that we may not restrict this issue to simply the acceptance or denial of the homosexual lifestyle...the issue ultimately has to do with the authority of Scripture...Josiah, I would be very careful before criticizing the college for removing heresy from it's website....

Let me clarify...I'm not sure if the group was promoting heresy, but certainly Mr. McGiffert is if he really believes in universalism as his "credo" says...

Daniel, the group was neither promoting heresy nor endorsing homosexuality. The group was about The Church & Homosexuality, not for homosexuality.

The College needs to exercise more discernment when it decides to censor a group. Christ most certainly bothered to "have the conversation", and while the Alumni directory should not be a "free for all", oure model should be Christ in the Word and not something else.

Josiah,

I did clarify that the group was not promoting heresy, but I think it is inevitable, when you have a homosexual (celebate, but still homosexual), starting the group, that the obvious direction is going to be to defend bomosexuality.

Of course Christ had the conversation, but that is a far cry from having a school sponsored website add a group which will certainly have a pro-homosexual bent. You and I both know that we do not come to the table regarding this discussion as blank slates...our foundational presuppositions will direct where we stand. Mr. McGiffert, being a universalist, a liberal theologian, and stating that he was glad he "washed his hands" of the PCA long ago should be enough for us to realize that he is not going to be favorably inclined toward the college or historic Christianity...let the discussion be had, but by him in this forum.

Furthermore, the college's decision to pull the plug on this group is not us wanting to stay in the bubble as one comment said...rather it is a standing up for truth by refusing to give men (or women) who have errant view of Scripture and human sexuality a forum to spread those views.

It is not realistic to think that a group started by a homosexual on the covenant website is not going to seek to promote that view. In other words, the issue is not the discussion of homosexuality, but the promotion of homosexuality. Again, read Mr. McGiffert blog and I don't think you can deny where his allegiances lie. He can call the group whatever he wants, but he position is clear and you can't expect Mr. McGiffert not to promote that view.

I think the nineth commandment commands us to promote the truth, not error and therefore to give Mr. McGiffert a forum, on the college website, is to promote error and therefore would be a violation of that commandment.

Daniel, Rev. McGiffert's may personally defend homosexuality, but a Group is a collection of persons engaged in dialogue, not monologue. Rev. McGiffert has his own blog for that.

If Group was removed because the College did not want to be involved enabling the promotion of homosexuality, then a mistake was made on their part by removing a group that had yet to do so.

I'm inclined to take Rev. McGiffert at his word when he says he wanted dialogue, not monologue. His sexual orientation does not necessitate him being a liar.

Further, if the issue is, like you say, a matter of "promotion", do you think that Rev. McGiffert should be removed from the Alumni directory altogether? He openly supports homosexuality and what you would define as "heresy" in his profile and on the forums. Unlike a group, there isn't dialogue on someone's profile, so he can say whatever he wants with no response.

I think your take on events as "standing up for truth" is (while certainly not the reasons expressed by Marshall for deleting the group) a matter of interpretation. One man's William Wallace is another man's Fascist, after all.

The only way to resolve that tension is to have the discussion, which the College decidedly chose not to do. I suppose all that sand is comfy and warm, no?

Daniel, Rev. McGiffert's may personally defend homosexuality, but a Group is a collection of persons engaged in dialogue, not monologue. Rev. McGiffert has his own blog for that.

If Group was removed because the College did not want to be involved enabling the promotion of homosexuality, then a mistake was made on their part by removing a group that had yet to do so.

I'm inclined to take Rev. McGiffert at his word when he says he wanted dialogue, not monologue. His sexual orientation does not necessitate him being a liar.

Further, if the issue is, like you say, a matter of "promotion", do you think that Rev. McGiffert should be removed from the Alumni directory altogether? He openly supports homosexuality and what you would define as "heresy" in his profile and on the forums. Unlike a group, there isn't dialogue on someone's profile, so he can say whatever he wants with no response.

I think your take on events as "standing up for truth" is (while certainly not the reasons expressed by Marshall for deleting the group) a matter of interpretation. One man's William Wallace is another man's Fascist, after all.

The only way to resolve that tension is to have the discussion, which the College decidedly chose not to do. I suppose all that sand is comfy and warm, no?

Josiah,

Brother, I think you are being naive if you don't think Mr. McGiffert will promote homosexuality in both his defense of it and positive promotion of it.

Also do you really believe the fact that I say he is teaching "heresy" on his blog is just my interpretation? Have you read his blog? He does reject historic Christianity! That is not just my interpretation, but his comments.

Furthmore, Josiah, the fact that you say I'm calling Mr. McGiffert a liar simply because he is homosexual shows that you are are coming at this with similar assumptions (false assumptions) that Mr. McGiffert does, namely that one must believe that homosexuals are liars at heart on every issue, simply because they are homosexuals...that is ridiculous...my argument stemmed from one's foundational commitments, not from a homosexual lifestyle.

Mr. McGiffert is going to want to defend homosexuality just like those who think it is sinful are going to want to speak against it. It's a mistake to think that just because something is a dialogue means that there will be no promoting of sinful behavior and views.

You, brother are the one sticking your head in the and if you believe that none of this would go on in that group!

Daniel, if you read what I said closely, I never asserted that Rev. McGiffert wouldn't promote homosexuality. But that' wasn't my point. I asked the following question:

Was the College right for pre-emptively deleting a Group that was started for a stated good reason because they were concerned it's founder may use it for bad?

Sub-question: is it right to delete the group, even if we're 99% certain the founder will defend/promote homosexuality in the conversations that occur?

Corollary: if the answers to the previous two questions are "yes", when should the College remove Rev. McGiffert from the Alumni Directory altogether, which he uses to promote/defend homosexuality both in the forums and on his profile?

Again, I did not assert that you think Rev. McGiffert is a liar, but I apologize if I made it seem that way. I was intending to make a related point that I trust Rev. McGiffert and his stated intentions for the group: that he wanted dialogue with people on both sides of the aisle on the issue of homosexuality and that he wasn't interested in pulpit style promotion of homosexuality.

You are, of course, absolutely correct that the group would contain dialogue between both people who support homosexuality and condemn it as a sin. This type of conversation has been one of the mark's of the Church since Paul confronted Peter to his face. It's a shame to see the College take a decidedly un-Biblical approach to this matter.

The college was right in taking down McGiffert's group. The issue is not about forbidding the open discussion of homosexuality. This happened in a subsequent forum and I cannot believe that the college did not forsee this. However, that discussion was an actual dialogue complete with opposing viewpoints. I do not take McGiffert at his word if he claims that his own group would have done the same. And my refusal to do so has nothing to do with his liberal theology or his homosexuality. It is rather that the group was restricted and its stated intention was for Gay Christians and their allies (or something to that effect, I didn't write it down). Open dialogue under these parameters would not have been possible. In order to join the group one would need to agree with the position. It may be different for a secular institution, but I do not see how Covenant's allowing such a group would not constitute an endorsement of homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. It is one thing to engage culture; it is another to roll over in its presence. The church and, by implication, an agency thereof, has a duty both to confront sin and to avoid any appearance of evil. Covenant would have done neither of these had they allowed the group to remain as it had presented itself.

Josiah,

I apologize for not reading your post more closely. I don't think the college was wrong and I'm not sure debating about it anymore would be edifying. I understand the need to dialogue and engage the culture, I'm not not convinced that debating over homosexuality on the alumni website is the best forum.

I think it is best that we agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for the interaction...it has given me much to think about.

What interests me is what seems to be the aversion/fear of what could happen by allowing a discussion between Gay Christians and straight Christians who support them.

Mr. Patterson is entitled to have his opinion, and he believes that it is in line with the word of God.

But Rev. McGiffert feels the same way. And we all have different opinions on how we interpret Scripture and what we consider sins. So why is it dangerous or wrong to allow a group to hold such conversation about this issue---quite similar to what's happening on the Community forums?

The fact is, there are people all throughout Christendom that have differing opinions on what is sin and what is acceptable in the eyes of God (hence our multitude of denominations.)

So where is the harm? It seems that Mr. Patterson is saying that it would be a sin for Covenant to allow alumni to be promoting something that he'd consider a sin---but what about other groups that promote ideas that some of us may consider contrary to Scripture?

There are groups that promote drinking. I am sure there are quite a few Christians that consider this to be a sin. Then, there are other groups that use profanity, or perhaps talk about something that others could find offensive, or in someway doesn't "represent/reflect the accepted views of Scripture and/or Covenant College." These are not getting shut down.

I think the great thing about a group is if you don't like the dialogue, you don't need to join. And if you don't SUPPORT the group, you can still post your objections and dissent.

Finally, it would be nice for Mr. Patterson to actually call the "Rev." Reverend, even though he disagrees with his views.

How exactly does one promote the homosexual lifestyle? By implying that I was seeking to do that shows a lack of understanding of human sexuality and sexual orientation. You seem to think that if we talk about it somebody might be irresistably drawn to become gay. There is no defensible intelligent basis for that presupposition.

Thank you for posting my credo. I have also asked that PCA clergy consider having a discussion on standards for their clergy, defining and refusing hate rhetoric and rhetoric designed to cast any group of God's children as categorically irredeemable.

If you have nothing better to attract people to your faith with than demonizing gay people, I have a suggestion for the PCA, Covenant College, and individuals who buy into getting a hate on for Jesus. It comes from Jesus and I see no reason why you should not take it literally, seeing as to how you wish to treat God's gay children.

It is this: Sell everything you have and give it to the poor.

After you've done that, get back to me and we'll talk about my universalism and my heresy and my gayness and all those things that you don't want to understand about me.

The presupposition behind an objection to promoting a homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with thinking that “somebody might be irresistibly drawn to become gay.” To suggest as much is to twist the intent of the statement. It is sufficient to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle that one seek to convince others that it is not sinful, whether or not they actually choose to engage in such a lifestyle. And obviously someone of a heterosexual orientation is not going to become gay on account of someone else’s rhetoric. However, it is entirely possible that someone of a homosexual orientation will be encouraged to act on that orientation. Contrary to popular belief, though, orientation does not of itself imply permission.

I wasn’t aware that it was possible to cast any group of people as categorically irredeemable. Once again, by asking the PCA to stop their clergy from saying what they never could have said to begin with, you twist what actually has been said. There is a difference between a group that is categorically irredeemable and one that is categorically unredeemed. The first doesn’t exist; as to the second, any worthwhile pastor who states the condition of those who are unredeemed will never do so apart from a declaration of the gospel. It is not hate speech for a pastor to declare that homosexual practice is sinful and that those who do such things cannot be saved unless they repent. To say that this is hate speech betrays a serious misunderstanding of the underlying theology. Second only to the glory of God, a pastor’s motive for declaring someone to be in sin is precisely because of his love for that person.

Alright. Dangit.

I purposely didn't respond to Kevin, because a conversation with Kevin is a lifestyle choice (no pun intended, ok, mebbe just a little), and I was delighted the conversation was ended.

But TJ. Kevin is probably the most thorough and committed "discussionists" I've ever met. This will go on forever.

Can't we talk about Sufjan?

When I was at Covenant they required us to learn the rules of logical thinking and classical logical fallacies. Kevin, your post is so reliant on circular reasoning it's hard to decipher any difference between your assumptions and your support for your argument.

The connection between degrading "worthy of death" rhetoric, as in the PCA Overture, and violence against others has been established already in courts of law. I have tried to make plain that it is possible to reject violent theology that degrades human dignity and worth and at the same time maintain your belief that homosexuality is a sin. I have been unable to attract an intelligent conversation about this because violent theology is as addictive as crack.

If you have someone to project onto as the evil 'other' (recent history: Jews, women, Blacks, etc.) there is a feeling that your theology is locked in watertight and that produces a sense of security, one like a drug. But it has deadly consequences, and you want to trivialize those consequences. I will not.

Again, sell everything you have and give it to the poor. With absolutely nothing to support your hate habit, and in living in absolute equality with 'the least of these', if you still come to Jesus degrading the humanity of your gay neighbor, it will be interesting to talk to you. But not a minute before.

Josiah, thanks so much for this post. I love the pic! (And the widow peak comment made me laugh.)

I really appreciate getting the chance to read the thoughts and opinions of everyone who replied (though I found myself skimming some of the more verbose replies). So you can guess I'm disappointed too that Covenant ixnayed the original post on its alumni site -- but so glad Josiah posted this one in response!

Josiah, keep challenging us, brother, to think about tough issues, especially this pressing and ever-present issue. And thanks, T.J., for having the guts to express what you think in a forum where you knew you'd be criticized. :) It's sure nice to be out of that "bubble." :)

This has given me a lot of food for thought. Thanks!

Josiah- I’d like to think you’re saying that my reputation for thorough and committed discussion means that my mere entrance into the conversation has automatically caused you to concede to the wisdom of my point. Alas, it probably means that you just don’t have time to talk to me. It does appear, however, that TJ either has not read your comment, does not believe it, or does not take the prospect of an eternal discussion all that seriously. But can I respond anyway? Please? Thank you.

TJ- Support for one’s argument is supposed to includes the assumptions, which might explain why it’s hard for you to decipher any difference between them. If you’d like to accuse my argument of being circular, then you will need to show that my conclusion is also one of my premises, not that some of premises are a part of my premises.

I agree with your claim that it is possible to reject violent theology and maintain the belief that homosexuality is a sin. My belief that homosexuality is a sin cannot, then, be the source of your belief that I hold to a violent theology. It must be that I have stated my belief in the eternal consequences of unrepentant sin. In other words, your objection is to the doctrine of a literal and eternal hell. I will not deny that this a violet theology. Nevertheless, you are in error to assume that this position implies that we be violent to our fellow humans. Furthermore, your appeal to the courts to show that the connection exists (implied or not) between this theology and violence to others is weak.

First, unless the point is limited to the interpretation of laws where, right or wrong, someone has to have the last word, establishing something in court really doesn’t carry all that much weight. All you need to do is hope for an egregiously stupid jury and anything can be established. There is, however, the crime of inciting someone to violence, but this implies either recklessness or intent. We can, at least, assume that the connection has been established in the law and that it has been upheld in various court cases. However, unless the rhetoric of the PCA Overture or the expression of the doctrine of hell has ever been the subject of a court decision in which either one was proven to fit the legal definition and was proven to have had an actual connection to violence, the connection exists only in your own mind. You are not warranted in bringing the authority of the courts to bear on your own opinion and you have yet to establish your case.

More importantly, your insistent on framing objectionable Christian doctrine in terms of its connection to violent acts is myopic in that ignores the larger question. We should not be debating whether it is nice to say that God sends people to hell; we should be debating whether he actually does send people to hell. You’re going to have to convince us of universalism before any further attempts to make us pleasant.

If it is truly the case that God sends people who do not repent of their sins to hell, if it is the case that the only way they can avoid going to hell is to repent, and if it is the case that they have no chance of repenting unless they are advised of their situation, then which is the less violent option for us to adopt? Shall we live in peace and harmony, avoiding offensive speech and, thereby, guarantee that people actually do go to hell? Or shall we say in no uncertain terms that God isn’t the teddy bear they thought he was and, thereby, show them a means of escape?

Kevin,

Do you suppose that it is possible for people to "love the argument" more than they love people? Do you think that someone could see "speaking the TRUTH in love" ... and never quite make it past that word "truth" ... they're so wrapped up in "being right" that they have no framework for understanding the fallenness of our understanding of God's truth? Is it possible that some personalities have such a bent so that this "orientation" leads them frequently into acting on their nature, to the point that the behavior is sin for them?

I'm not accusing you of this... I'm just questioning if it is a possibility that (1) I have some small piece of the truth embodied in the prior paragraph, and (2) you might not have this pre-disposition... whether to the point of sin or not I'll leave between you and God.

I know I'm going a bit out on a limb here... but I am concerned for many who are so sure they have "the truth" properly wrapped up in a propositional logic so tightly bound as to make propositional logic their God. (Is it wrong to so focus on one *attribute* of God that we fail to try to understand the "whole" that is God?) I'm concerned for those who see the fallacy in a person's statements and immediately seek to help the person uncover that fallacy... perhaps never actually getting to know the *person* committing the fallacy (and can you love them without knowing them)?

Obviously, I'm concerned with myself even as I write this, because based on Josiah's comments, I have to assume you are "the Kevin of longstanding eWittDoor fame" ... and thus I associate with you a certain mental image of someone that I don't even know, yet probably should know. I picture you as all those arguments I read in years past, and I don't know you as a person.

My last sabbatical ('98-'99) I became concerned with an issue, and e-mailed a person of similar fame for "the argument" asking about that issue... that person e-mailed me back a long missive correcting my fallacies, attempting to erase my ignorance, and (more or less) trying to completely slice-and-dice the "real issue" behind the ones I'd raised... without really addressing the concern I had, a concern for people that went beyond the "relevant doctrines" that "the powers that be" had determined were God's way of dealing with this concern.

Of course, despite the fact that the response was approximately five times the quantity of my initial query, I still had the concern... so I attempted to respond to the lengthy response, point by point, bringing things back to my concern... a concern for *people*, and a question not of the doctrines involved, but about the people involved ... you see, community had been broken. Badly.

The second response was so large as to be sent to me in a set of files... I don't recall right now if it was five or seven files worth of response.

Now on the one hand, I could try to accept that this person "loved me" so much that they spent this time trying to correct my stupidity (the first time was ignorance, so I guess the follow-up can't fall back on that) ... but instead it came across as just one more data point that all this person cared about was heresy hunting, bashing people with doctrine, being right, and convincing me that this person HAD GOD's TRUTH.

I gave up. I knew the M.O. ... any response I made, any attempt to try to address my concern for the people I loved and with whom I had once shared community, would be met with a point-by-point correction that merely multiplied the problem.

For those too in love with "the argument", that's the only weapon I have... to choose not to play on that playing field. It's a bit unfortunate, because those people need love too! And it's a shame that I have to think in terms of weapons and warfare when I should be thinking of people in terms of building community through love.
--
RDS

Randy- I don’t recall that we’ve ever met, but I do remember you. I can also recall several of your own posts at Covenant and I have read many of your comments since then. The one thing that consistently came across in these was your concern for the people of whom and to whom you were speaking. I note the same thing here. But that’s about as far as it goes. From all appearances, you and I are polar opposites in how we process information. It is extremely difficult for me not to think or write in syllogisms, especially when engaged in the exchange, and not merely the mutual confirmation, of ideas. And it is precisely this point about my own thinking process that makes it virtually impossible for me to figure out what you’ve just said or how it relates to the context and content of this discussion.

I’m not suggesting that one way of thinking is inherently better or worse. I do, believe, however, that certain forms of communication are more suited for particular purposes. Judging from your writing style, I think you’d make a great novelist (and I’m not being facetious here, I actually enjoy literature). On the other hand, unless you have an array of communication techniques that I haven’t seen, then you are probably not very suited either to defending the Christian faith nor to defining heresy in a way that others would recognize it. But then, you don’t have to be. The abilities that each of us brings to the church are diverse. They are all needed, but it does not follow that each one of us has to have each one of them.

You wrote of the person you emailed, who sliced up what you said without addressing your real concern. Unless there’s something you haven’t said about him, I suspect that you may have misinterpreted the situation. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you should accept that this person loved you enough to take the time to respond. How it came across to you indicates a lack of communication (despite the obvious attempts on both sides). It is not cause for you to assume anything less, no matter how it may seem. If I were in his position, I would have corrected all of your logical fallacies too. However, this would have nothing to do with a love of the argument that goes beyond love for people. It would be because it would be the only way that I know how to figure out what your real concern is. The idea behind deconstructing the fallacies is to provide parameters for you to rephrase the concern until I do understand what, exactly, you’re really saying. I cannot adequately answer what I do not understand. I suggest that this person was not deliberately ignoring your real concern; he was trying to figure it out. On the other hand, perhaps he was just as you have painted him; however, absent proof to the contrary, it is always best to make the more charitable assumption. You can still give up talking if gets nowhere, just try not to do so with a grudge.

We are on opposing ends of a spectrum and I think it would be very easy for each of us to misread the other. I fully admit that my own writing does not come across as loving. But this does not imply that I do not love people nor does it imply that I love argument more than people. Yes, you have said that you’re not accusing me of this and nothing in what you’ve written has the strength of an implication to this effect. Did it occur to you, however, that by making the suggestion you may have facilitated some readers in making false inferences?

On the other hand, when I look at your own writing, the image that I must resist is that of someone who has created a false dichotomy between truth and love such that truth is entirely relative. Incidentally, this may have been a concern your anonymous email person had too. Your note that this person came across as one who “had God’s truth” comes across to me as saying that there is a wider list to choose from. Everybody can be right and contradict each other all at the same time. I trust, however, that this is not the case. Until I see you specifically deny essential propositions of the Christian faith, I will chalk this up as perhaps not expressing yourself in the clearest way possible.

Bottom line, we are very different and it is easy for each of us to project onto the other a complete lack of what we see most clearly. Consequently, I am unloving and you don’t know what the truth is. The temptation needs to be resisted on both sides.

Thanks, Kevin, for words even kinder than I deserve! You've definitely grown in your ability to communicate over the years (even as I think I may have regressed). I think you've analyzed the situation perfectly, and you've also given me some sense of relief! You're right... I'm *not* the type to "defend the faith" or to "define heresy"... I think you've nailed it, but then you've said "that's okay", and as I said, that gives me a great sense of relief.

Though not the one to define, I think I have a place in the discussion on what *not* to define as heresy... and thus I'm more open and willing for discussions to occur, even "scary" discussions, than those who might have a better handle on "the heresy line".

I'm just too tired of the general tendency (at least that I saw in the PCA) to draw a box around the truth, then constantly draw lines through that box separating those in "the right" from those who held (to the opinion of the one drawing the line) heretical positions... until the line drawers all found themselves occupying separate little boxes (and thus worshipping a "too little god", imho).

Thanks again for your graciousness and kind words!
--
RDS

Kevin and Randy, your exchange was very insightful to me. I do think sometimes any of us can get caught in loving the argument and loviung to be right in our interpretation of scripture, and I see this as a primary distractor in the churches, often preventing people from being the body of christ in the world: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick & imprisoned...too bad we can't have these discussions on the way to Habitat for Humanity or a homeless shelter, or a prison ministry, because, they have gone on for ages and I doubt they'll be over any time soon.

The other point that I want to make is in reference to my comments with regard to courts of law establishing connections between hatespeech and violent acts against minorities. I was not speaking about something of my own authority. The Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, AL, which bankrupted the KKK by the same formulaic argument after a black mother's son was dragged, beaten & killed in Alabama, lists a subgroup of the PCA on its watchlist because of the hatespeech & racism proliferated in 25-30 churches under the influence of a Rev. Wilkins, theonomy and Reconstructionism. You can read about that here:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=235

Dozens of gay men, transexuals and transvestites are killed (murdered) every month. You don't hear a lot about it because nobody cares that much. Where do their killers, the police and the press, and the churches, learn to be so indifferent towards their lives? Somehow people are being taught to hate and they are given permission to be violent against the least of these.

I do not presume to know exactly what the connection is between hatespeech and these kinds of deaths, but I do look forward to the cases finally getting brought to their day in court, and if groups being watched are proven to have played a part in it, so be it. I do not see it any differently that taking on the KKK for a lynching.

I suspect that most of the people who die by such abhorrent means wouldn't share Kevin's view of the bible. The weird thing is, like it or not, the killers do accept that view of the bible.

This is why I continue to beg you to govern yourselves and your local congregations as well as your denomination accordingly. Step up to the plate to defend these people, discipline ministers who are using their pulpits for hate, and love sinners as Jesus did, without indifference toward them, their suffering and exploitation. I am certainly not out of place in asking this.

peace

Kevin and Randy, your exchange was very insightful to me. I do think sometimes any of us can get caught in loving the argument and loving to be right in our interpretation of scripture, and I see this as a primary distractor in the churches, often preventing people from being the body of christ in the world: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick & imprisoned...too bad we can't have these discussions on the way to Habitat for Humanity or a homeless shelter, or a prison ministry, because, they have gone on for ages and I doubt they'll be over any time soon.

The other point that I want to make is in reference to my comments with regard to courts of law establishing connections between hatespeech and violent acts against minorities. I was not speaking about something of my own authority. The Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, AL, which bankrupted the KKK by the same formulaic argument after a black mother's son was dragged, beaten & killed in Alabama, lists a subgroup of the PCA on its watchlist because of the hatespeech & racism proliferated in 25-30 churches under the influence of a Rev. Wilkins, theonomy and Reconstructionism. You can read about that here:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=235

Dozens of gay men, transexuals and transvestites are killed (murdered) every month. You don't hear a lot about it because nobody cares that much. Where do their killers, the police and the press, and the churches, learn to be so indifferent towards their lives? Somehow people are being taught to hate and they are given permission to be violent against the least of these.

I do not presume to know exactly what the connection is between hatespeech and these kinds of deaths, but I do look forward to the cases finally getting brought to their day in court, and if groups being watched are proven to have played a part in it, so be it. I do not see it any differently than taking on the KKK for a lynching.

I suspect that most of the people who die by such abhorrent means wouldn't share a literal view of the bible. The weird thing is, like it or not, the killers overwhlmingly do accept that view of the bible.

This is why I continue to beg you to govern yourselves and your local congregations as well as your denomination accordingly. Step up to the plate to defend these people, discipline ministers who are using their pulpits for hate, and love sinners as Jesus did, without indifference toward them, their suffering and exploitation. I am certainly not out of place in asking this.

peace

I just have to add one more thing...

I'm starting a Randy D. Smith fan club. Anybody else want to join? :)

Seriously, dude, your posts touched me. Enough for me to Google you. Man, get a blog. It would be easier to find you. :)

I appreciate the fact that you are interested in "having community" with other Christians, regardless of differences. I don't know if I agree with T.J. on all of his viewpoints, but I know he loves the Lord and has felt his grace, same as me. :)